David, you have driven the thought in with precision and acute distinction. I just wished to add one point I felt needed amplification. While there exists mutual influence between culture and behaviour, culture involves groups, society, tribe. It is a collective attribute therefore rather difficult to manipulate quickly, while behaviour tends to be individual/personal and therefore easier to manage and manipulate within a short span of time.

Now in the behavior/culture interaction, a similar mass game is at play. When one person in a room of 1000 does something a little out of the norm, they are the jumper and the other 999 are the earth– the earth doesn’t move–the culture doesn’t change– and you just “see the jumper”– you can tell they’re not the norm. But if 800 people in the room are doing the same thing as the one did earlier, perhaps now the culture of the room has changed, because the two masses are not so out of balance.

Another way I see this is that culture is somehow the median of behavior. Where you have distributions of behavior with “more than one peak”, then you have culture clashes because individual members don’t always think of themselves as close to the same peak in the distribution.

In both analogies above, the essential distinction is that culture is usually thought of as an environmental or group effect, but when you ask how that relates to behavior, I think it warrants specifying whether you’re talking about one person’s behavior or the behavior of several. This is why I like the gravity analogy– it assumes the rule is the same, and what really matters is the numbers/sizes of the two things that are interacting.

Finally, these two views and that of the article are very static to age considerations, which I think have a ton to do with the overall question from the point of view of the individual.

Thanks Danny, I completely agree. Often, the organization’s selection, orientation, and retention systems need to play a “border guard” role to protect the culture. The challenge is that selection systems often focus too exclusively on above-the-waterline skills, and fail to evaluate below-the-waterline factors.
Having said that, it would be a mistake to over-rely on “hiring the right people” to build and maintain a culture. First, people can change. A person who has grown up in one culture can discover and appreciate a new set of cultural norms. Second, selection alone will never be a powerful enough lever to maintain your culture. You will need to use all Six Sources of Influence to keep your culture on track and growing.

Interestingly, growth challenges culture, in that an infusion of individuals with in-congruent behaviors (values) potentially can lead to imbalance, with undesired behaviors influencing the micro culture (local), which can eventually influence the macro culture (national).Intentional protection and hedging around the preferred culture becomes crucial. Clearly stated mission, vision, values, beliefs and perspectives are the key to keeping the culture centered and on track, with a willingness to confront, and even remove those who may derail the intended culture. This requires commitment and clarity.

Understanding the direct relationship between behavior and culture, and having a clear vision of your preferred culture within your organization are so important. Then, getting buy-in to that vision constantly becomes the activity every leader, every person in the organization. Even the largest, most successful organizations can maintain a coherent culture in the face of constant change, and in that, provide a wonderful work life for everyone in the organization.